I'm a Chinese who has been having English lessons for more than 16 yrs. These concepts have been included or at least mentioned in the English classes I took in my primary and junior high schools. But my teachers failed to explain them in a systematical way as you did. I used to hate grammar and did kind of fine in my English study. But these mechanisms of language formation could have done much help in accelerating the process of learning English if being truly understood. Now I have graduated and might become an English teacher myself. That's why I am re-learning Linguistic contents using resources online. I hope I can make it easier for my future students to learn English. Thanks for your videos! By the way, are you using MS Onenote in the demonstration slides? Like the way you mark contents with different colors.
Hi TheTrevTutor! Great videos on Syntax. I find it helpful to mention here also the Verb Valency, since it is the concept dealing vith verbs requiring the arguments, while it roughly corresponds to Verb Transitiy solving only post-verbal elements, namely objects. Roughly, because Di-transitives take 3 arguments (tri-valent) which might be confusing for those who are new to syntax. (those 2 terms are not synonyms and were coined by different people to approach the characteristics of verbs differently).
Thank you for your helpful vdeos. I have a question regardin ditransitive verbs and the tree diagram representation. In another video you explained that a verb can have only one complemente and as many adjuncts as we want to add (x'theory). So, if DO and IO are complements to the ditransitive verb (they are required by the verb), how should we represent them in a tree? Thank you
Thank you for the lessons. A question about the Mathematical formula of ditransitive verbs, like gave(x, y, z), do we use the same expression to render both "John gave Kim a scooter (7a)" and "John gave a scooter to Kim (7b)"? But which argument maps to y? Kim or the scooter? (so does z). In other words, does the order of parameters of the formula match the order of arguments (nouns) in the sentence exactly?
Great video ! I just had a question about the verb 'to be'; would we define it as intransitive or transitive, given the 'object' that comes after it is kind of an extension of the subject i.e 'I am a man'
Hi, dear I want to enquire about something. The sentence: He kept smiling. In which category we can place the word "smiling" I mean (subject/predicator/object/complement) Since the verb keep in this situation is an intransitive verb. Another examples: I like solving problems. I like to solve problems. Here "solving problems/to solve problems" act like objects. So what's the difference between these sentences. I need more details about this. Thanks in advance
i dont know about "he kept smiling" (do tell me if you found out in the meantime :D) but in "i like solving problems" i can tell you that "solving" is a gerund (a verb turned into a noun basically), its not much but i hope it helps at least somewhat
Transitive = Has object. Di = 2. Ditransitive = 2 objects. Three arguments are subject, object 1, object 2 (indirect/direct, order can change in some verbs like give)
Enjoying your lectures and look forward to more. My question: why must the verb “to give” be considered only ditransitive? Even if “she gave the bomb” is ungrammatical, “she gave the bomb away” is grammatical, even if unlikely. My first instinct here was to consider “away” to be a modifier and thus “gave” to be transitive, but, perhaps to answer my own question (confirm if correct), the fact that the removal of “away” leaves the remainder ungrammatical indicates it is not merely a modifier, but is in fact an argument, making the verb truly ditransitive. It is just not a specific argument, just an indefinite person or place.
@10:19 Sorry but can you explain WHY Louise gave the bomb is agrammatical? I don't see your logic here. If 'gave' is used in the sense of 'donated', then it doesn't require a third argument. 'Louise donated the bomb' is grammatical and therefore so is 'Louise gave the bomb'. Of course all of this depends on the context but I think it's important you take that into consideration because you had just said earlier that context is important, so...
IMHO, the English verb ´to give´ requires an object that is given and aslo the recipient. That is why, again my personal oppinion, your model sentence I gave the bomb .. is not well formed. In its passive form, double object verbs can have 2 alternatives, so: ´The bomb was given (to XY (who is missing))´ sounds awkward, and furthermore, the second alternative cannot be formed in such case: ´XY (who is missing) was given the bomb´ is not grammatical. Thats why the verb ´to give´ requires also the recipient. It is the ObjectIndirect which can be ommited, it is correct, such as John poured me Whiskey / John poured Whiskey. But with verb ´to give´ it sounds strange to ommit Oi.
![[Syntax] Nouns and Their Grammatical Properties](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3ZvPjCWZnZ0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Nouns and Their Grammatical Properties](/img/tr.png)
![[Syntax] Raising Verbs](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xrGjDH5ToHg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Theta Roles and Theta Grids](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/06MpE22sIPI/mqdefault.jpg)
You explained this so much simpler than my syntax professor, thank you!
I'm a Chinese who has been having English lessons for more than 16 yrs. These concepts have been included or at least mentioned in the English classes I took in my primary and junior high schools. But my teachers failed to explain them in a systematical way as you did. I used to hate grammar and did kind of fine in my English study. But these mechanisms of language formation could have done much help in accelerating the process of learning English if being truly understood.
Now I have graduated and might become an English teacher myself. That's why I am re-learning Linguistic contents using resources online. I hope I can make it easier for my future students to learn English. Thanks for your videos!
By the way, are you using MS Onenote in the demonstration slides? Like the way you mark contents with different colors.
This is the best explanation of grammatical properties of verbs that I have ever seen! Thank you!
Hi TheTrevTutor! Great videos on Syntax.
I find it helpful to mention here also the Verb Valency, since it is the concept dealing vith verbs requiring the arguments, while it roughly corresponds to Verb Transitiy solving only post-verbal elements, namely objects. Roughly, because Di-transitives take 3 arguments (tri-valent) which might be confusing for those who are new to syntax. (those 2 terms are not synonyms and were coined by different people to approach the characteristics of verbs differently).
Thank you. This really helps me in year 1 of linguistics.
i love you! With your help i have a hope to pass the morfosyn/syntax exam! thank you
Thank you so much! I found these videos very clear and I like your mathematical linguistic explanations.
thank you so much for this clear explanation!
nice to find your channel
Thank you for your helpful vdeos. I have a question regardin ditransitive verbs and the tree diagram representation. In another video you explained that a verb can have only one complemente and as many adjuncts as we want to add (x'theory). So, if DO and IO are complements to the ditransitive verb (they are required by the verb), how should we represent them in a tree? Thank you
Thank you for the lessons. A question about the Mathematical formula of ditransitive verbs, like gave(x, y, z), do we use the same expression to render both "John gave Kim a scooter (7a)" and "John gave a scooter to Kim (7b)"? But which argument maps to y? Kim or the scooter? (so does z). In other words, does the order of parameters of the formula match the order of arguments (nouns) in the sentence exactly?
it's very helpful . thank you so much
10 :00louis give ali letter ..this is a correct sentence
This is gearing up to be a pretty good series. (By the way, I really enjoyed your videos on logic and discrete math.)
Great video ! I just had a question about the verb 'to be'; would we define it as intransitive or transitive, given the 'object' that comes after it is kind of an extension of the subject i.e 'I am a man'
it's a linking verb, copular
Hi, dear
I want to enquire about something.
The sentence: He kept smiling.
In which category we can place the word "smiling" I mean (subject/predicator/object/complement) Since the verb keep in this situation is an intransitive verb.
Another examples:
I like solving problems.
I like to solve problems.
Here "solving problems/to solve problems" act like objects.
So what's the difference between these sentences.
I need more details about this.
Thanks in advance
i dont know about "he kept smiling" (do tell me if you found out in the meantime :D) but in "i like solving problems" i can tell you that "solving" is a gerund (a verb turned into a noun basically), its not much but i hope it helps at least somewhat
WHat are SVs are they like compliments with a sentence to the right?
sir why we say it DITRANSITIVE VERB if it is providing us three arguments, please clarify it Sir
Transitive = Has object. Di = 2. Ditransitive = 2 objects. Three arguments are subject, object 1, object 2 (indirect/direct, order can change in some verbs like give)
this is great Thanksgiving you
كله تمام
Buen dato crack, pero no recuerdo haberte preguntado
so chibemba is a language?
spoken by whom
Enjoying your lectures and look forward to more. My question: why must the verb “to give” be considered only ditransitive? Even if “she gave the bomb” is ungrammatical, “she gave the bomb away” is grammatical, even if unlikely. My first instinct here was to consider “away” to be a modifier and thus “gave” to be transitive, but, perhaps to answer my own question (confirm if correct), the fact that the removal of “away” leaves the remainder ungrammatical indicates it is not merely a modifier, but is in fact an argument, making the verb truly ditransitive. It is just not a specific argument, just an indefinite person or place.
arabic is both vso and svo
Tysm sir
Thank you dude
Can any one explain to me why he uses anther language to explain why not only in English ?
Nice
45
kambera
@TheTrevTutor why don't you use direct object and indirect object other than "Argument"?!
@10:19
Sorry but can you explain WHY Louise gave the bomb is agrammatical? I don't see your logic here. If 'gave' is used in the sense of 'donated', then it doesn't require a third argument. 'Louise donated the bomb' is grammatical and therefore so is 'Louise gave the bomb'. Of course all of this depends on the context but I think it's important you take that into consideration because you had just said earlier that context is important, so...
IMHO, the English verb ´to give´ requires an object that is given and aslo the recipient. That is why, again my personal oppinion, your model sentence I gave the bomb .. is not well formed. In its passive form, double object verbs can have 2 alternatives, so: ´The bomb was given (to XY (who is missing))´ sounds awkward, and furthermore, the second alternative cannot be formed in such case: ´XY (who is missing) was given the bomb´ is not grammatical. Thats why the verb ´to give´ requires also the recipient.
It is the ObjectIndirect which can be ommited, it is correct, such as John poured me Whiskey / John poured Whiskey. But with verb ´to give´ it sounds strange to ommit Oi.
@@Vivaldi4 What about "giving a fuck"?
I hate adverts ..
I know this sentence may be a bit... shall we say... "rude", but what's the case with the following question: "Michael fucked himself." ?